Summary: The Council housed Ms X and her child in bed and breakfast (B&B) accommodation for 22 weeks longer than the period allowed for in law and this was fault. This fault led to them living in unsuitable accommodation. The Council also failed to add Ms X to the correct accommodation waiting list for approximately two months which caused Ms X uncertainty. In recognition of the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise and pay Ms X £4,135. The Council has already taken action to improve its temporary accommodation provision which is welcome. The Council has also agreed to make some additional service improvements.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained that the Council housed her and her child for too long in unsuitable bed and breakfast (B&B) accommodation when she was homeless, delayed making a main housing duty decision and placed her on the wrong accommodation waiting list.
2. Ms X said because of the Council’s faults, she lived in unsuitable accommodation for longer than necessary and has been caused uncertainty and frustration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
7. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
8. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

9. I have investigated events from when they began, with Ms X’s homeless application in February 2024. My investigation ends with the date of the Council’s final complaint response dated 7 August 2024.
10. Any matters which took place after this time, the Council has not yet had notice of through its complaints process and would need to be raised as a new complaint.
11. However I have remedied ongoing injustice (injustice arising from the faults identified within this complaint period) up until September 2024. This is when Ms X and her child ceased living in bed and breakfast accommodation.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, guidance and council policies.
13. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered all comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

Homelessness

14. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (the Code) sets out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
15. If a council has “reason to believe” a person may be homeless, eligible and in priority need, then it must provide interim accommodation for them. The definition of “priority need” includes those seeking assistance with homelessness after fleeing domestic abuse. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
16. If a council is satisfied the applicant is homeless and eligible for assistance, it will owe a relief duty. This duty means a council must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation for any eligible homeless person. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
17. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan (PHP). (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
18. If homelessness is not successfully prevented or relieved, a council will owe a main housing duty to applicants who are eligible, have a priority need for accommodation and are not homeless intentionally. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
19. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of their household. This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)

Suitability of homelessness accommodation

20. Wherever possible, Councils should avoid using bed and breakfast accommodation. (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 17.33)
21. Bed and breakfast (B&B) accommodation can only be used for households which include a pregnant woman or dependent child when no other accommodation is available and then for no more than six weeks in relation to a single homelessness application.
22. B&B is accommodation which is not self-contained, not owned by the council or a registered provider of social housing and where the toilet, washing, or cooking facilities are shared with other households. (Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2003 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 17.35, 17.38)

Reviewing suitability of homelessness accommodation

23. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of certain council decisions, including the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted. Councils must complete the review within eight weeks of the date of the review request. If the applicant disagrees with the review decision, they can appeal to a county court. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204)

Allocations and the housing register

24. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme and must prioritise certain groups, including homeless people. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))

Allocations policy 2019, Oxford City Council

25. This Council prioritises applicants on its housing register using a banding system. It awards applicants a band ranging from 1 (most priority) to 5 (least priority) depending on the applicant’s situation.
26. If an applicant is homeless and the Council accepts either a relief duty, or main housing duty to them, they are banded on the housing register at band 3.
27. The Council’s housing register consists of three separate lists. These are the General Register List, the Transfer List and the Homeless List. The Homeless List is for applicants the Council has accepted a statutory homeless duty to and who are in temporary accommodation awaiting another offer of accommodation. Being on this list gives homeless applicants priority for certain properties.

What happened

28. Ms X made a homelessness application to the Council in early February 2024. She explained she had a young child and had been asked to leave her current accommodation.
29. The Council assessed her application and offered her interim accommodation (a B&B) within a few days, which Ms X accepted. Ms X stayed in the B&B until late May. The Council accepted a relief duty to Ms X approximately three weeks after she applied as homeless.
30. The Council accepted a main housing duty to Ms X from 17 April. It did not inform her of this until 22 April, but in its letter it said its duty acceptance start date would be recorded on her case file and on the housing register as 17 April.
31. Ms X told the Council she was struggling living in B&B accommodation with a child due to the lack of space and lack of cooking facilities. The Council accepted that the accommodation was unsuitable but said it was all it had available. It said other homeless families had been living in B&B accommodation for longer than she had and she was on a list to be moved as soon as possible.
32. The Council made Ms X aware, in its main housing duty letter, that she could request a review of the suitability of her B&B accommodation, which would carry a county court appeal right if she disagreed with the Council’s review decision. Ms X did not request a suitability review.
33. In April and May Ms X raised concerns with the Council that she was on an incorrect accommodation waiting list. The Council responded to say she had previously been on the General Register List but from the date a relief duty was accepted to her, she should have been added to its Homeless List. The Council accepted it did not add Ms X to its Homeless List until April, when it should have done so in February. Ms X said she had likely missed out on properties when she was moved between lists. The Council disagreed as it said in late April, her position had been backdated to February on the correct list.
34. Ms X complained to the Council. She said she had lived for too long in B&B accommodation and it was taking too long for her to be rehoused. The Council took just over two months to respond at stage one, and when it did, said only that it could not investigate her complaint at stage one and had escalated it to stage two.
35. The Council offered Ms X a self-contained property in June 2024 and Ms X accepted and moved in. Ms X only lived there for two weeks, as shortly after moving in she reported feeling unsafe due to criminal activity happening within the block of flats.
36. The Council withdrew the offer and moved Ms X and her child back to the B&B they had been living in before, as it had no other temporary accommodation available at that time. Ms X stayed at that B&B until September 2024.
37. The Council took a further month after its stage one holding response and then provided a response at stage two of its complaints process. It accepted its complaint handling had been poor and apologised. It said this was due to staff absence.
38. The Council did not address in its complaint response that Ms X and her child had lived in B&B accommodation for longer than the six weeks allowed in law. However it said it did not uphold her complaint that she had been told she would be rehoused within a few weeks. It said:
39. “Oxford City Council does not advise clients that they will be rehoused in a few weeks – most families are in hotels for over six weeks… Oxford City Council has no evidence to confirm that you were informed of anything different.”
40. In September 2024 Ms X moved into a long-term property provided by the Council.
41. Ms X was unhappy with the Council’s complaint response and complained to the Ombudsman. She said the Council should take action to ensure other families do not live for a prolonged period in unsuitable accommodation.

Recent service improvements at Oxford City Council

42. In the Council’s complaint response to Ms X from August 2024 it said most of its homeless families lived in hotel accommodation for more than the six weeks allowed in law, indicating a problem at this Council with the use of B&B accommodation.
43. The Ombudsman found fault with the Council in another recent investigation, covering a similar period to this case where a family lived in B&B accommodation beyond the legal timeframe. Following this investigation, the Council agreed to take action to improve its services and have the case considered by its Cabinet Member for Housing and the Council’s relevant scrutiny committee.
44. The Council reported on its progress to a scrutiny committee in March this year. By that time it had delivered an additional 60 temporary accommodation units and reduced the numbers of families in this type of unsuitable accommodation.
45. In response to my enquiries on this case, the Council told us it accepted that Ms X should not have lived in B&B accommodation for more than six weeks. It said at the time of her application, it had a significant shortage of temporary accommodation. Since then the Council’s “B&B elimination plan” has been underway with the aim of adding 200 units in total to its temporary accommodation stock.
46. As part of this investigation, I asked the Council how many homeless applicants who were pregnant or had children were still living in B&B accommodation beyond the six weeks allowed in law. In March, the Council said it currently had twenty families in B&B accommodation, six of those had lived in a B&B for longer than six weeks and none had lived in B&B accommodation for more than twelve weeks.

My findings

B&B accommodation

47. We generally would not investigate and come to a finding on the suitability of temporary accommodation where it was reasonable for a person to resolve any disagreement about this using their statutory review right followed by a county court appeal right.
48. From 17 April 2024, the Council accepted a main housing duty to Ms X, which meant the hotel she occupied became temporary, rather than interim, accommodation. Ms X was informed of her review rights if she did not believe the accommodation was suitable.
49. However in this case, I do not consider it was reasonable for Ms X to ask the Council to review the suitability of this accommodation. This is because the Council already agreed with her that it was unsuitable and that she needed to be moved as soon as possible. Ms X would not have gained a different outcome from lodging a review request and it therefore would not have been reasonable for her to take the matter to court. For this reason I have exercised discretion to remedy the full period that Ms X lived in B&B accommodation.
50. Ms X had a child and therefore should not have lived in a B&B for any longer than six weeks. Ms X and her child lived in a B&B for just under 28 weeks. This was fault by the Council and caused the family to live for a prolonged period in unsuitable accommodation.

Main housing duty

51. Ms X said the Council should have made a main housing duty decision sooner than it did and if it had she would have been in suitable long term accommodation sooner. The Council informed Ms X a few days later than the 56 day timeframe that it had accepted the main housing duty. However in its letter it clarified that her main housing duty acceptance date was from 17 February 2024 (which was in time) and that this was the date her priority was registered on the housing register. The Council did slightly delay informing Ms X that it accepted a main housing duty and this was fault. However this did not caused Ms X an injustice.

Accommodation waiting list

52. The Council accepted it wrongly placed Ms X on its General Register List - when she should have been on its Homeless List - for approximately two months. However it said her bidding and position had been unaffected, as once the Council moved her to the correct list, it backdated her joining date. Ms X disagreed, as she said the move between lists may have caused her to lose out on properties she was close to matching with on the previous list.
53. The Council added Ms X to an incorrect accommodation waiting list and this was fault. I cannot say, if not for this fault, that Ms X would have accepted a suitable alternative property sooner, as this depends on many variables that are difficult to predict, even on balance. However this fault has caused Ms X uncertainty about whether she may have been moved to alternative accommodation sooner and this is an injustice to her.

Complaint handling

54. The Council delayed responding to Ms X’s complaint and failed to address her complaint at all at stage one. The Council said this was due to staff absence and has apologised to Ms X. This poor complaint handling was fault by the Council and its apology is sufficient to remedy the injustice caused. I have also recommended a service improvement to prevent recurrence of the fault in future.

Service improvements

55. As outlined in paragraphs 42 – 46, the Council has already taken action to improve its provision of temporary accommodation. I have therefore not repeated any of these service improvements as recommendations in this decision.

Back to top

Action

56. Within one month of the date of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Ms X for the period she and her child spent in unsuitable B&B accommodation and for the uncertainty caused by its delay in adding her to the correct housing waiting list;
2. Pay Ms X £200 to recognise the uncertainty caused due to the Council’s error regarding the housing waiting list; and
3. Pay Ms X £3,935 to recognise the injustice caused by Ms X and her child living in unsuitable B&B accommodation for 21 weeks and 6 days weeks longer than they should have. This is in line with recommended remedy range for this type of injustice as set out in our Guidance on Remedies.
57. Within three months of the date of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Outline what action it has taken to move the remaining families that are living in B&Bs beyond the six weeks allowed in law, to alternative accommodation; and
2. Outline what action it has taken to resolve the faults in its complaint handling which occurred in this case and prevent these faults happening again and affecting other complainants in future.
58. We publish Guidance on Remedies which sets out, in section 3.2, our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended.
59. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

60. I find fault causing injustice and recommend actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman